Skier size vs Ski width

[tss4420]

Ok so this probably has been addressed before but I am going to throw it out there again.

Here is the question:
What is the net effect of skier height and weight given exact skier ability on the effectiveness of ski width. Let's assume both skiers are expert just a notch below ski movie types.

Skier 1: 165 lbs 5'10"
Skier 2: 235 lbs 6'4"

Let's go for the idea that you can have exactly the same ski that could be shorter or longer as well as narrower or fatter. As you adjusted the length the flex would stay the same as before.

I know that I am opening a can of worms with this but I am trying to figure out what is the equal fatness for both skiers. If #1 wants a 184cm/94mm under foot should I assume that it is reasonable that skier 2 want a 195cm/106mm? What produces the same effect for both skiers? It is more of a math/physics question I quess. What effect does the difference in joint location on the taller person have on the amount of leverage to work a wider pair of skis. Should an athletic 8ft tall person be able to ski 230cm/130mm on groomers. For that person having 94mm under foot would be a joke. Their big ass feet would hang off the sides for one thing. But you probably get my point. I'm not looking for "feel" or "preference" I am looking for emperical data answer. Get your sliderule out.

Ok so I am skier 2 minus the ski movie part. I always thought that there were skis for big people for some reason. The Volkl G4 was my idea of that ski when it came out. Either you needed it because you were a bad ass skier or you could ski well and were a big guy.

Any thoughs would be appreciated. Thanks

[BanditXXX]

HuH!! UUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!

[i killed judas.]

honestly, people have skied 230cm before probably. i actually have a pair of 215cm k2 at my house to this day. my dad used to ski them in the late 80s. he was wicked on those things and could fucking rip. this was his groomer/resort ski. AND they were only about a 60mm throughout (straight ski). at the time he skied them, he was 6'1" and 235lbs, size 14 shoe. his big ass feet hung off the sides like crazy.

go back in time and super long skis that were really skinny underfoot is really common.

come to think about it, he still skis pretty long/narrow skis. volkl snowranger and some old head, cant recall the model. 200cm, 79mm underfoot on the 'ranger and 205cm on the head.

this has nothing to do with answering your question, im aware, but i just thought id throw out there that people used to ski the type of ski in question all of the time back in 'the day', regardless of how big their person was, and still would shred some pretty epic lines.

[mwthomsen]

Wow, I couldn't even read throught that post. I bet Pechelman could come up with a really indepth answer.

[AsheanMT]

Get your sliderule out.

Just a sliderule? or can I use my abacus too?

[tss4420]

I agree with the Judas killer. I started skiing on my grandfathers metal head skis with the big wire bear trap bindings. He could tear up the ice back east on his 210s that were maybe 2.5inches wide. What I am getting at is if there is some way to say that two people of different size can have a similar experience on the same line all things being equal except skier size and ski size? I don't know??? I'm really not trying to make a science project out of this just something makes me wonder when I see both a 168cm and 193cm ski of the same type both have the exact mm underfoot. I have maxed out my Commodore 64 and looking to the masses for help.

[Crass3000]

Assuming you are both REALLY good (ski movie level as you say) you should both be on 190+ length skis. Your both tall so tall skis should suit you best and would be more stable. The major difference I see is weight. Assuming you both ski the same as far as aggressiveness then the guy who weighs less would possibly want a softer ski than the guy who weighs more. I'm not sure what else your looking for.

Edit: I don't think the ski width really plays into the equation here based on. You just pick ski width based on preference, conditions, and terrain you plan to ski.

[zo]

I think people should ski on what they feel comfortable on and what works for them. Chris Collins usually skis on 175cm. Sumo's... and he's been in some ski movies.

[squatch]

Edit: I don't think the ski width really plays into the equation here based on. You just pick ski width based on preference, conditions, and terrain you plan to ski.

It does. You gain stability with more width.

[summit]

a 60mm 230cm dh board has around the same surface area as a 175cm 80mm straight ski

[Crass3000]

I think people should ski on what they feel comfortable on and what works for them. .

That sounds absolutely rediculous. The next thing you will be telling us is to not buy boots over the internet based on color. Comfort really has nothing to do with all this newfangled ski stuff

[Crass3000]

It does. You gain stability with more width.

I'm sure there's no limit to that theory Like I mentioned.... you pick based on preference, conditions, and terrain. Why don't midwestern folk ski on 138s? They should be more stable right?

[squatch]

I'm sure there's no limit to that theory Like I mentioned.... you pick based on preference, conditions, and terrain. Why don't midwestern folk ski on 138s? They should be more stable right?

So if my theory has a limit, that makes the opposite true? Because that's basically what you're saying. Conversely, for ski length to have an effect under your rule, we should be on the longest length possible. 225s for everybody!

I'm sure you could truck down most midwestern hills on a stiff 120 underfoot ski without a single turn. Also, while I'm sure there are exceptions, for the midwestern hills I've been to the whole place is groomed. Any stability benefits are negated by the inaccesibility of your edges and turning difficulty.

Further to the point: why are comp skiers skiing on 100mm underfoot skis in hardpack conditions, instead of skinny skis of the same length. Try to land an air on hardpack/junk snow on 70mm skinny sticks and tell me you'd prefer that to your fatties.

[Crass3000]

So if my theory has a limit, that makes the opposite true? Because that's basically what you're saying. Conversely, for ski length to have an effect under your rule, we should be on the longest length possible. 225s for everybody!

I'm sure you could truck down most midwestern hills on a stiff 120 underfoot ski without a single turn. Also, while I'm sure there are exceptions, for the midwestern hills I've been to the whole place is groomed. Any stability benefits are negated by the inaccesibility of your edges and turning difficulty.

Further to the point: why are comp skiers skiing on 100mm underfoot skis in hardpack conditions, instead of skinny skis of the same length. Try to land an air on hardpack/junk snow on 70mm skinny sticks and tell me you'd prefer that to your fatties.

Yah I guess I see your point. I normally ski on 90-100mm here on basically hardpack specifically because I find them more stable but people look at me like I'm stupid half the time. I guess where I see conditions starting to make more of a determining factor is in a little higher range than that width range. I guess the better skier you are the more width underfoot you can get away with when the conditions don't necessarily call for it.

[tss4420]

I think that I might be able to refine my request. I am looking for effect of length and width. Put two skiers on the same snow covered hill of corn in Oklahoma. Three inches of fresh, 200 Vertical feet 25 degree. Each skier is going to make two turns. Pound for pound skier one is the same strength as skier two. What affect does the height and weight of a skier have on a skis ability to turn and float on snow? What width ski is required to make the same turns for each skier? Does that make sense?

[Crass3000]

I think that I might be able to refine my request. I am looking for effect of length and width. Put two skiers on the same snow covered hill of corn in Oklahoma. Three inches of fresh, 200 Vertical feet 25 degree. Each skier is going to make two turns. Pound for pound skier one is the same strength as skier two. What affect does the height and weight of a skier have on a skis ability to turn and float on snow? What width ski is required to make the same turns for each skier? Does that make sense?

I agree with Zo. Your question is sort of strange. Maybe you're not being clear enough. Do you mean both skiers are the same strength as in they are both great or both poor skiers? Or they are both muscularly the same strength which would be pretty hard to quantify given two people of different height and weight.

In general, the heavier you are the harder it is to float on a given set of skis at the same speed as a smaller person. If you both weigh the same then it is alot easier to go over the handlebars assuming you are taller since your center of mass would be higher. You basically have two dimensions that will give you the float -- width and length (and I guess flex to make it more complicated without even talking about camber, etc). Assuming one was taller and heavier they would obviously float easier on something with more surface area. I think you're looking for an easy answer to a question with TONS of variables.

Demo skis then see what you think. You probably already have an idea of what you need I'm sure.

[IrieRon]

I have a friend about your size, which is obviously way bigger than most of the sprite-sized skiers you see out on the hills, and for whom the entire ski industry seems to be geared.

I think what you're trying to say is:
If skier A: is 5'10" 175 pounds and skiing a 188 cm ski @ 105 mm in the waist, then what would an OP-sized person (skier B) need to ski to achieve the same float and relative tip feel?

I recall my friend saying he wanted to get a pair of custom Igneous at like 205 or 210 cm, because he'd "done the math." So apparently there is some math out there. I'll email him.

[splat]

Ski size is inversely proportionate to your dick size and relative to your capabilties. duh.

[serge944]

Ski width - weight/surface area. To achieve equal flotation.

Ski length - ratio of height to running length fore/aft of boot center. To have the same moment. Although, since people aren't distributed equally - half fun coming up with a profile equation and integrating if over the height.

What more can you say?

[Tony]

Mr. Pechelman, your presence is required at the white courtesy phone. Mr. Pechelman....

[focus]

A precise answer to your question would require a great deal of oversimplifying -- rendering whatever answer you come up with more or less useless. It's about a lot more than height and weight, or length and width. It doesn't even end at skier ability and where they're skiing.

The tangential discussion in the "First day on my ANTs" thread is a good example.

[IrieRon]

I emailed Big Guy Skier this:
For example, if skier A: is 5'10" 180 pounds and skiing a 188 cm ski @ 98 mm in the waist, then what would you (skier B) need to ski to achieve the same float and relative tip?


Big Guy Skier emailed this back:
Based on height alone, the ski would either have to be the same waist(98mm) in a 207cm length or same length(188cm)and a 108mm waist.

Based on weight alone, same waist(98mm) would be 235cm length or same length (188cm) would need 122mm waist.

This is using 6'5" ht(1.1 multiplier on 5'10") and 225lbs (1.25 multiplier 180 lbs) Of course the kids are already on larger skis now and their average weights are around 160 lbs range, so these values would have to be adjusted.



Cue smaller people saying this is ridiculous and he should just ski on a 188cm...

[tss4420]

Thanks for all of the replies. All of this is so subject so I completely understand everyone's pov. I was looking at the High Society webpage and noticed that on their FR ski the underfoot width changes more significantly than most other skis. To me it seems that they are going for an expected ski performance/experience for what they somehow consider and average skier size for a specific length.

Length Tip Waist Tail Effective Edge Sidecut
171 cm 116 mm 82 mm 110 mm 1410 mm 17.8 m
179 cm 124 mm 92 mm 114 mm 1530 mm 21.7 m
187 cm 136 mm 104 mm 126 mm 1590 mm 23.7 m

To me it just seems to make sense and I guess that is where this whole thing was going. I didn't mean to make it more complicated than it needed to be. Thanks to all.